Your dismissive 'utter bollocks' demonstrates your inability to understand what I am saying, rather than dismantling my argument . . .
Nice try. I actually did understand your claims to be able to diagnose illness in a WG and determine her diet by virtue of your trained palate in vaginal flavours, but quite rightly I termed your claims "utter bollocks". Next thing, you'll be claiming to be a sniffer dog, or a human MRI scanner, or Uri fucking Geller. Lord spare us.
I'm not going to argue any further on this . . .
Contrary to this assertion, I sense he is about to argue further on this, oh oh oh oh oh. . . here goes!!!:
Many of us who are not pedants will accept that it's common parlance to utilize the adjective 'sweet' to mean pleasant tasting without necessarily meaning sugary. You don't agree, and 'sweet' to you always takes the literal meaning. You're entitled to that, but I resent being told by you that it's utter bollocks.
I've already addressed your attempt to redefine 'sweet'.
Your assertions are both disingenuous and misconceived. I said your ability to taste illness and determine diet using your trained palate in vaginal flavours was utter bollocks. Nice try at attempting to apply it to something else. This is all too easy
You don't understand what I'm talking about.
I do. And it was utter bollocks (see above).
We should leave it at that.
Nice try at attempting to have the last word and then closing off the conversation. People tend to try to do that when they know they are talking utter bollocks. I'm afraid you don't get to control what I do or do not respond to.
Conversation closed.
That didn't really work out for you did it?
Fluffy Cunt signing off.
Excellent.
